O puzzle de Jesus: uma crítica cética
Bom, dado que parece que nem Roberto Takata nem Kentaro Mori irão escrever uma resenha crítica do artigo Jesus Puzzle, acho que deverei ser eu a fazer o trabalho de cético. Começo com alguns comentários feitos no Pharingula:
PS: Ou seja, minha pergunta inicial não é sobre a historicidade de Jesus, mas sim sobre a plausibilidade da Teoria do Cristo Mítico de E. Doherty e outros e sobre as credenciais acadêmicas desses autores, dado que a teoria consta da lista de teorias conspiratórias da Wikipedia. Isso foi motivado pelas fortes afirmações da Wikipedia. Se estas estão erradas, deveriam ser editadas:
While advocates rely on the absence of contemporaneous reference to Jesus, and the relative silence of Paul regarding much of Jesus' life, specialists like R. T. France regard such arguments with deep suspicion, arguing that various sources may not mention Jesus for any number of reasons. Further, while many Christ myth theorists draw parallels between early Christianity and Hellenistic mystery religions, relatively little is actually known about the beliefs and practices of the latter. Scholars like Herbert George Wood have suggested that, given the above issues, the Christ myth theory can only be advocated in defiance of the available evidence. A number of scholars therefore classify it as a form of denialism and compare it to a variety of fringe theories. For example, the BBC's Today programme once asked N. T. Wright if he would appear on-air to debate Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy concerning the thesis of their book The Jesus Mysteries. Wright, whom Newsweek once deemed "perhaps the world's leading New Testament scholar", declined, saying that "this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese."
Osame says: Sorry, I am really concerned that we atheists should endorse conspiracy theories like Christ Myth Theory:
Do you think that there is no scholar consensus about the historical existence of Jesus?